LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

0 011 897 819 5 #

THE MISSOUHI COMPROMISE.

SKETCH OF THE REMARKS

OF

JAMES 0. PUTNAM,

UPON THE

JVEBK^SK^ jre:siojlutiojvis9

In Senate of State of N. York, Feb. 3, 1854.

Mr. PUTNAM said : Mr. President— I cannot
concur witli the sentiment that the introduction
of this subject is uu timely, and legislative ac-
tion is unnecessary. I think, that in the history
of the question connected with these resolutions,
New York has a vital interest. I think the State
of New York would be false to herself, false to
her past legislation ou the questions which con-
vulsed the country to its centre, when Missouri
asked admission into the Union, if she did not
now, thirty-four years after that action, at a
time when all good faith is to be wantonly sacri-
ficed and trampled on, if she did not most em-
phatically rebuke this project of the Senator
from Illinois. I am unwilling to have these res-
olutions disposed of quite so summarilj', and
upon a silent vote.

Sir, let us look for a moment at the basis of the
Union of these States. All free government is the
result of mutual compromise. The government
under which we live, has uo other original basis.
The convention at Philadelphia, which framed
the Constitution of the United States, represent
ed the most extreme views, and the most antag-
onistic interests of the several States. Of all
questions which patriotism was there called up
on to settle, none more threateningly menaced the
objects of the Convention than that of Slavery.
At the South, Slavery had incorporated itself in-
to all the relations of society. The character of
Southern climate and products had stimulated
this vigorous growth. While it had a nominal
existence at the North, it had no such relations
to northern capital or industry as promised per-
manency to the system. Hence arose the con-
flicting political and moral views in the conven-
QQ ou this great question.

After mouths of discussion, and of patriot!
labor and sacrifice, their work was accomplish-
ed, the Constitution presented to the States. In
the language of Washington, it was framed in
the spirit of " amity and compromise."

The South consented to the partnership, pro-
vided she could be protected in her slave pro-
perty by the restoration of her fugitive slaves.
She also insisted upon a representation of her
slave projierty, in Congress. Although the
moral sense of the North was against it, she
yielded to the first demand, and she yielded the
second for an equivalent in the matter of taxa-
tion. These questions at rest, the Constitution
was presented to the States for ratification.
Here ensued another, and for a long time,
loubtful struggle. But at length the last State
gave in its adhesion, and then arose this gov-
ernment in its own proper beauty, and granite
strength, to take its place among the powers of
the earth.

The Northern Atlantic States were commercial
States; commerce, everywhere a leading and
controling element, ever has been, and ever will
be, aggressive. And when united to it are the
higher elements of civilization, it elevates where
it subdues, and becomes the advance-guard of
the institutions of Christianity.

The commercial spirit early discovered the
importance of controlling the Valley of the Mis-
sissippi, and the outlet to the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. Jefferson, with a clear prescience of his
country's future, appreciated the same necessity.
He opened the uegotiation with France which
resulted in the treaty of 1803, which secured tc
the United States the territory of Lousiana. In
1804. Louisiana, in pursuance of the treaty was

erected into two territories, and the act so organ-
izing the territory, made many restrictions upon
the slave traffic. In due time Louisiana, proper,
was admitted as a State, and of necessity and
without objection as a shive State. So matters
rested until 1819-20, when arose that storm
which convulsed the country to its centre, and

to the North, by surrendering forever the terri-
tory acquired from France, and lying north of
36 degrees 30 minutes, to freedom. A patriot-
ism Mhich this age may well imitate and revere,
responded to the call. The principle of the
amendment proposed by New York through Mr.
Storrs, was adopted. Missouri became a sov-

whose angry blasts still linger in our ears. — lereign Stale, with slavery, bid upon a consideru-

Missouri knocked at the door of the Union, and
asked equal privileges with the other states. A
part of tlie territory ceded by France in 1803,
and of the Louisiana purchase, she was ready
to enter the sisterhood of States. Sir, let us
briefly review the history of that contest. Let

lion, upon a solenm pledge, emphatic and irre-
vocable ; solemn as plighted faith could make it,
positive as enactments could decree it, that
slavery should be forever excluded north of 36
degrees 30 minutes, from the Louisiana purchase.
After the admission of Missouri, Arkansas

us see the part acted by NewTork, in that con-tcame into the Union with slavery. She was en
troversy, and we shall be the better prepared tojtitled to admission under the compromise of 1820

meet the argument of Senator Douglass.
souri asked to corue in as a slave State.

Mis-jThe North acquiesced, in good faith, paid the
The;bond. The country has long regarded that

southern States insisted upon her admission as aiquestion as at rest, not a rest for a generation or
matter of right. The northern States concededia century, but a final, and eternal rest. Sir, let
the propriety of her admission as a free State, me recur a moment to the action of the Legisla-
but denied the right she claimed to enter as a ture of New-York, pending this controversy. —
slave State. At the same time, the State of On the 20th of January 1820, and while the con-
Maine, from the northern Atlantic coast, urgedjtrovcrsy was the most violent, her Legislature
her claim to admission into the Union. Herlpassed a preamble and resolution, instructing
right was unquestiond, but the southern Statestheir representatives in Congress " to oppose the
sought to authorize the admission of the twojadmission as a State into the Union of any ter-
States by one act, for the purpose of securing the|ritory not comprised within the original boun-
admission of Missouri with slavery. Such an dary of the United States, without making the
act passed the Senate of the United States. The prohibition of slavery thcein an indispensahlc
House of Representatives refused to concur, i\.w(\' condition of admissioti."

Maine was admitted by a separate and indepen- This sir, was the position of New York, and
dent act. Then the controversy was narrowedlshe would have resisted to thii» day, but for a
down to the admission of Missouri, and a great compromise which surrendered a controverted
part of that angry discussion arose upon two right for a forever conceded advantage. There
amendments to the bill, authorizing the unquali-jwere within the then unknown future of the con-
fied admission of Missouri, or amendments simi-'troverted territory, four States. New York with
lar to them, introduced by two representatives'the other free States, insisted that all of them
from New Yoik. Mr. Taylor, of this State, in-lshould come in with the slavery prohibition, the
troduced an amendment to the act admitting'soulh resisted the demand. It was adjusted by
Missouri, prohibitory of slavery in the State, yielding Missouri and Arkansas to slavery, and
Mr. Storrs, of New York, introduced another Nebraska and Kansas tlr:.'n undeveloped and un-
amendment, and which contains the principle ofjChristened, to freedom. Such was the bond. —
the uUimate compromise, and is in the followinglNew York has discharged her part of the obliga-

tion.

language :

" That in all that tract of country ceded byjqueslion as vital
France to the United States^ under the name orlUnion.
Louisiana, which lies North of thirty-six degrees
and thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only
such part thereof as is included within the lim-
its of the State contempUited by tliis act, there
shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servi-
tude, otherwise than in the punishment of crime:
whereof the party shall have been duly convict
ed." It also provided for the surrender of fugitive
slaves.

Pending the debate upon the several amend'
ments, raged that storm which threatened the
very existence of the govurnment. It was of this
fearful conflict that Mr. .Jei.'fkrson said it was
" the most [)ort':'ntous that ever threatened the
Union, that in tlie gloomiest moment of the Re
volutionary war, he never had any apprehensions
equal to tliat he feit from that controvcM-sy."' It
was in the midst of this conflict of opinion and
passion that the " gre;>.t Pacificator," Mr. Clay
invoked that prit)ci[ile v.hich lies at the basi
of all social and political organization He called
upon the country to make another sacrifice upon
the altar of patriotism. He invoked the North
to quiet the Si)nth by admitting Missouri, with-
out restriction. Me invoked the South to yield

will the South discharge hers? It is

the very existence of the

But sir, the Nebraska bill alluded to in the
resolutions, declares the j)rohibition of slavery
in the compromise of 1820 to be inoperative,
and to be repealed by the compromise measures
of 1850. This is a proposition easily stated. —
Sir, the compromise of 1820, stood isolated from
every other relation then present or future. It
related solely to the territory acquired from
Fiance, and known as the Louisiana purchase.
It might possibly have some bearing upon the
permission of slavery in subsequently acquired
territory south of 36.30. But if so, it would
with equal force exclude slavery north of that
fine.

Tlie Compromise of 1850 was independent of
all past Compromises, and entirely original in all
its bearings and relations. Let us cxamiue its
history.

'i"ho acquisition of our Territery from Mexico
was the result of a Nat/onal war , and whatever
may have been the etliics of that contest, I re-
gard that acquisition as the natural result of our
institutions.

Had we not acquired it wJicn we did, andasiwe
lid, its acquisitioUj at some time, and in sofiac

^ manner, was one of the facts of our destiny. Socannot argue it away.' To override it in the

certain as the weaker yields before the stronger,
80 certain as an inferior society yields before
the Superior power of a higher civilization, so
certain as a keen scented, earnest, grasping com-
mercial spirit, will overcome the indolent or ef-
fete systems that oppose its progress, just so cer-
tain was the star ol our Empire to " Westward
take its way," until it should mirror itself in the
calm waters of the Pacific.

Our Mexican Territory was acquired by treaty
and became National domain. Before we were
fairly recovered from our surprise over so stu-
pendous results, California knocked at the door
of the Union with a free constitution, and de-
manded admission to the sisterhood of States. —
The South was disappointed, she felt that the
balance of power was departing from her. She

manner proposed by the Nebraska bill, would be
subversive of all good faith, and good faith un-
derlies the foundation of Republican empire. —
Your most solemn enactments, are but idle
parchment, and a mockery, under .such construc-
tion.

But it is argued that the Compromise of 1820,
was but a law, and may be repealed as any other
law. I grant this to be its mere legal relation.
I do not claim for it that it is technically a
treaty, or a compact, or a constitutional provis-
ion, but I contend that in spirit, and of right it
has, the bhiding force nf them all. While in form
it was but a law, it was in fact a treaty, or a com-
pact by which the Slave States, in consideration
of the admission of Missouri with slavery, solemn-
ly .agreed that the territory north of 36 30,

said she had contributed her money and her men should he forever free. Can the South take and
to secure this domain and she insisted that the|keep what we parted with, and now refuse the
flag of the country should protect her propertyjprice, without consent of the other contracting
in all its forms on every inch of this new|party1 Can she now say that a second coniprom-
National domain. The history of that contest'ise destroys the first? What will she say of a
which threatened, as I then believed, and nowithird compromise — that it destroy ed the 'econd'?
believe, the very existence of the Republic, isllf this be the rule, the fewer compromises we
fresh in our memories. Amid most stormy con- make the better; and I apprehend tins would be
trovensy and most dissentient opinions, the Com- more than conviction with the North,
promise measures relating solely to the territory! That this was a compact: v\as the view of all
acquired from Mexico, became fixed laws and in- the statesmen and political writers of that time,
stitntious. If for the sake of a natural boundaryjl find that the Editor of Niks' Begisler, than
a fragment was excluded from the Louisiana teri-lwhom few men were more accurate observers of
tory it was not of consequence to change theipolitical events, spoke of it as having the bind-
principle. ing moral force of a constitutional provision. I

The positions taken by Senator Douglas arejread Sir, from Niles' Reuister of March 11, 1820,
involved in two propositions. First, that thesefrom an article entitled " The Slave Question,"
measures repealed the Compromi.se of 1820. in which he says; — "It is true the Compromise
Second, that they were the adoption of a new is su[iported only by the letter of a law, repeala-
policy and doctrine, to wit: that any State has a ble by the authority which enacted it, but the
right to demand admission into the Union, with'circumstances of the case give to this law a
or without slavery, irrespective of the location ofi,7io?-«//orce, equal to that of a positive provision
its territory, or the manner of its acquisition. jof the Constitution, and we do not hazard any-

Sir, I shared the sentiments of those northern thing by saying, that the Constitution exists in
statesmen who in 1850 were instrumental in bring-:its observance." This view met the written ap-
ing about that Compromi.se. I closely watched proval of the most eminent statesmen of that
and personally listened to much of the debates|time.

in Congress during that angry discussion, and; Sir, this reasoning of the Illinois Senator, in-
not a syllable every reached ray eye or my eariterpolates a fraud into the record. Who believes
sanctioning these alarming propositions. Is thelfor a moment, that the measures of 1850, could
Missouri Compromise repealed in terms 1 is it inlever have been passed, if they had contained in
spirit! Was it claimed in any .speech of anyiso many words a repeal of the Compromise of
member of Congress, North or South 1 No, sir ;'18201 If in addition to what they gave the
that Compromise stood alone, on its own basis, South, they had also declared that what was
and forever inviolable. The Senator from Illi-igiven to the North in 1820, and which alone
nois declares that those magic words " The peo- calmed the storm that threatened to overwhelm
pie of the United States do enact," &c., wereius, was to be transferred to slavery ? That that

more than creative. That they not only made
a new Compromise in relation to new territory,
freshly accpiired, but without language to ex-
press it, or innuendo to allude to it, destroyed an
adjustment in relation to the Louisiana purchase
which we had held for nearly half a century,
and under which the country had repo.?edin con-

bargain was to be cancelled, and that too with-
out the shadow of an equivalent. Sir, the jiroji-
osition would have been trampled under the feet
of an indignant i)eo])le, with scorn and defiance.
Sir, a bargain is a bargain, and because it is such,
I, with multitudes of conservative men at the
North, conceded to the South her fugitive slave

fideuce for thirty years. Sir, this proposition is act, in 1850. Let her beware how she forfeits

utterly unsustained. TheComjiromise measures
of 1850 were not destructive. They constituted
a new bond, a new compact, in its moral force
between the free and the slave States, in relation
to matters wholly independent

The acts that affixed the seal to this new
bond, did not raze the seal from the old one.
They left it untou 'bed in letter and spirit. It
is there Sir. Words cannot rail it off, casuistry

our confidence in a good faith, which must be
reciproc 1, or bind nobody.

But there is another proposition more start-
ling, if possible, than that I have noticed. It is
that the mea.:ures of 1850, engrafted a new poli-
cy upon the government. That it relinquishe I
all claim or right on the part of Congress, to
regulate slavery in the territories, or give quali-
fied admi.ssion to new Stales into the Union, come

LS,?''^ ^^ CONGRESS

they from where they may. If this be true, Sir.lthe resull
the followers of the Veiled Prophet, were notirace ; to

more " dupes and victims" than we, who sus
tained the compromise of 1850. Because we
acquiesced in granting to the South, nay insisted
that there should be granted her, her constitu-
tional rights; because, in addition, we were will-
ing to yield something in the " spirit of am-
ity," and that something expressly " nomina
ted in the bond," did we yield everything ? Did
we turn propagandists of her institutions'? From
the organization of the government there has
been but one opinion at the North, and hardly a
divided one at the South, that slavery was an
evil. That it degraded labor, that it weakened
the strength of States, and aside from its moral
considerations, of which I do not speak, was
upon gre^t principles of public policy, to be kept
within its original limits. This was the policy
of the government, and it has been waived only
under circumstances, when concession seemed to
be duty. To this we trace the action of the
States in relation to the North Western Territory,
and of Congress in reflation to the Louisiana
purchase. In this we have but followed the en
lightened sentiments of all nations. Suppose the
result claimed by the Senator from Illinois did
not arise from the unseen magic of the measures
of 1850, but from express enactment, what rea
son could be given for overthrowing this long
settled policy 1 Did our fathers, and have we
mistaken the effects of slavery upon society ? —
Does it really elevate labor, does it dignify
States, does it tend to develope the highest ele-
ments of a people, to have this institution in
their midst "? Were our fathers in error, when by
positive act they prohibited it from Ohio, Indiana,
and Illinois 1 Was it a mistake on the part of
our own State, that we abolished it years ago 1
No sir, no sir.

The reason for this policy grows more potent
with every rising sun. The proposition, if true,
sends us back to the dark .ages of public opinion.
Let me not be misunderstood in this connection.
I have no sympathy with northern anti-slavery
fanaticism. I have entertained extreme con-
servative sentiments on this subject. My oppo-
sition to the extension of the institution does
not rest upon the humanity or the legalities of the
relation of master and slave. Of these I say
nothing ; upon them I base neither sentiment or
conduct; I look beyond and higher. I look at

institutio
to humat
policy sLv.

0 011 897 819 5

jrior
I the
>wer

the
■ping
cum-

slavery within its limits, except unuei
stances like those which have two or three times
occurred since the formation of the government,
and which can hardly again arise Its abandon-
ment will not be conceded through a falsified
record. No, sir ; the north, I trust, will ever ad-
here to the Compromises of the Constitution, and
to all other compromises which patriotism, amid
conflicting but honest opinion, has been called
to make, but beyond this she must not be pressed
to go. She is asked to keep the compact in
good faith, let it be reciprocal, and she Avill keep it.
Sir, I distrust the source whence this Nebraska
bill emanates. I say to the South, she should
fear the Greeks offering gifts. It comes from a
Presidential adventurer, who, in the last National
Democratic Convention, received fewer votes
than he expected, more than he deserved, for-
tunately for the country, not enough to secure
his end. It comes from the peculiar represen-
tative of " Young America," who hold nothing
sacred in the past, who oppose on principle or
passion all conservatism, and run rampant
over all institutions which interpose barriers to
the attainment of their ends. I feel it my duty
to do what my predeces.sor in 1820 did, and op-
pose this President hunting ambition I trust to
' o'er leap itself" He voted instructions, thirty-
four years ago, to our representatives, to oppose
the admission of Missouri as a slave State. New
York consented to that admission upon a solemn
compact. That compact it is now proposed to
violate, and that not in a bold manly way, but
through a fraud and a cheat! If I could reach
the ear of the south, I would exhort her to be-
ware , that it is dangerous to accept this gift,
that the honest convictions of many northern
men deemed the Compromises of 1850 just and
)roper, and called for by the exigencies of the
times, and affording a protection to the institu-
tions of slavery, beyond which it was not safe to
pass. I would say to her, we are a conservative
people and a reasoning people, but we have also
instincts. Re.ison is slow and calculating. In-
stinct is not slow, but rapid as the lightning, and
consuming as the fires it kindles.

Printed at the Albany Reuibtsr Opficb.

^

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

I II I

iiiiiiiiiiiii

0 011 897 819 5 •